I find the most amazing thing about the current theory of the universe is the
surprise that surprises like this can happen after so much scientific
"knowledge" of how the universe operates. At least on the macro vs.
micro (quantum) level.

Why do we keep forgetting that current
scientific "knowledge" rests on a rubble field of old, contrary and
(just to add insult to injury) disrespected previous scientific
"knowledge"?

Revolutionary effects of ideas like "Dark
matter/energy" have happened before.

I'll never forget the
disparaging tone back in the late 50's of skeptics ridiculing the notion of
theories of "Continental Drift". What has now become the bedrock (pun
intended) of current global geological dynamics under the name of "Plate
Tectonics".

We forget this because we (especially scientist
wannabes) are silly enough to presume that there is actually such a thing as
scientific "knowledge". No true scientist would ever presume such a
thing. Like the field of philosophy, real science is more a matter of
questioning rather than answering. Always treading tentatively and skeptically
on any ground declared to be "knowledge".

In fact, the two
words should really never be found modifying the other. The combination is an
oxymoron.

No, Sam, there are plenty of scientific discoveries that are established
"knowledge."

- The Earth is 4.5 billion years old.- The
Universe is 13.7 billion years old.- Earthquakes are caused by natural
movement of the Earth's crust, not angry gods.- Diseases are caused
by biochemical agents and processes, not angry gods.- Lightning and
thunder are caused by natural physical phenomena in our atmoshere, not angry
gods.- Earth is one planet among many orbiting the Sun. Geocentrism is
wrong.- Humans and apes share a distant, common genetic ancestor.

That is all verified, testable, replicable knowledge, and you do a disservice
to science and scientists when you claim that science can never "know"
anything.

Doctors "practice" medicine even though they are trained beyond the
level that "practice" should be required. Lawyers "practice"
law. They too are educated beyond the level where "practice" would be
required.

Doctors and lawyers are educated enough to know that
knowledge expands as we look deeper into "trusted" concepts. They know
that as knowledge expands, their training will become more and more obsolete.

Scientists, if they are true scientists, do exactly as Samhill said;
they question. They search. They observe. They discuss. They try different
answers to see how those answers affect all of the "baseline" science.
When they find that they have discovered a new way of looking at
"established" theories, they present those discoveries so that other
scientists can find any failings.

It's a good method.

Those who mock old theories seem to think that "now" we are infinitely
more knowledgeable. We may all be surprised that someday most of what we
"know" will be shown to be no more "factual" than the old
theories that are mocked today.

Learning expands the mind to ALL
possibilities. If we stop questioning, we stop progressing.

Blue, they may be "established knowledge" but that does not mean they
are all concrete facts or truth. That's why the word "theory" is
used so much in science, and its constantly changing. By the way, it takes a
similar amount of faith to believe them as it does to believe in god, so
don't try and sound so condescending k :) by the way, I believe in both
science and god and that they do not contradict one another, we just don't
have enough true knowledge of either

What science has proven is that things are ever changing however, evolution is
still a theory not a fact. Evolution in some things but not all things. There
is much we don't know and those things will not be known until after the
second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.

It fascinates me when people
try to take science to disprove something. Remember the earth as WE know was
created from matter that was already there. It didn't come out of mid-air.
The perfect seasons for most of the earth and many other things testify that
there is a great creator whether one wants to believe it or not.

@ VST and Redshirt1701: Gravity is both a law and a theory. In science, a
"law" is an analytic statement - a formula that tells us what things
will do. A "theory" tells us why something happens - it is a thoroughly
tested idea, that accurately and predictively describes the natural world.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation allows us to calculate the
speed and trajectory at which you would fall should you jump off a 20 story
building. The theory of gravity tells us why you would fall.

It is
generally a good idea to look something up yourself before recommending such an
action to someone else.

(Oh, and Einstein's General Theory of
Relativity shows that Newton's Law of Gravitation breaks down when
gravitation is very strong - which is not applicable on Earth, but is necessary
and applicable if you are studying space.)

@ VST: Newton's Law of Gravity states, "'Every particle attracts
every other particle with a force that is proportional to the product of their
masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them."

It states what happens - it does not explain why it happens. Why it happens
is the Theory of Gravity.

Newton's Law tells us what will
happen if you walk/jump/fall off a building - the Theory of Gravity explains the
cause of that effect.

You can split hairs all you want between
classical physics and quantum physics - but it will not change the fact that
gravity is a theory in the exact same way that evolution and the big bang are
theories - and it was a theory when Newton wrote his law.

I have seen gravity referenced as being
one of the four known fundamental interactions of nature as part of the General
Theory of Relativity, but have never seen it referenced specifically as the
Theory of Gravity in any discussions involving Relativity.